B
buffalo
Guest
Then all the soulless creatures were given immortal souls at the same time? What happened to the others?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Why?
I want you to explain, in detail, why God’s act of creation can only be instantaneous, and not the beginning of a prolonged series of developments.
All you’ve done is made a baseless assertion not in evidence.
Let’s operate under your premise though, just to carry the thought to its conclusion. God created the Universe. In an instant, He created, ex nihilo, a singularity which then collapsed, erupting outwards in a wave of space-time and disparate matter. That act of creation was instantaneous.
Then, over the first few billion years or so, matter shifted and moved, eventually forming stars, and then galaxies. Eventually, our galaxy formed, and our little pocked of the universe came into being. Our sun formed, and began gathering in dust and large debris, which in turn clumped around itself until planets formed and began orbiting the sun. At some point, our planet formed. From there, we see the massing of water into primordial oceans. At some point, either God enacted the natural mechanics which generate life, or God operated outside of the bounds of natural laws to take an inanimate clump of matter, and give it life. From there, that life changed and developed in accord with God’s plan, and eventually the shape of humanity was born. God gave that first true human an immortal soul, distinct from the irrational animal and plant souls of other life, and Humanity was born.
All of this, the result of a single, instantaneous act of creation, and all perfectly theologically sound.
Buffalo, you know that is not what I said. That is not even close to what I said. Stop trying to manufacture conflict. Just admit that you don’t have a response and get on with your life. If you genuinely believe that is what I meant, then I really don’t know what to tell you, because you obviously don’t even begin to grasp the basics of my argument.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a valid question that has to be answered if you want to maintain your position.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
No, it’s not. I didn’t even remotely imply that…
But fine, I’ll answer you.
No, lower animals do not have immortal souls. Only humans have immortal souls. Plants and animals are lesser beings, and have animal / plant souls. When God gave Adam his immortal soul, he was the only being in all of physical existence to have an immortal soul. When Eve came into existence, she was also given an immortal soul. All of their children have immortal souls. NOTHING ELSE DOES.
(Note, this does not account for the potential for alien life. I don’t even want to get started on that, as I don’t honestly think there is any.)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Could the lower animals mate with Adam and Eve? or did God somehow prevent that?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It depends on how distinct the transition from proto-humans to Adam would have been. If they were different enough, they could have been rendered incapable of mating. That’s always been my assumption, though there’s no evidence, as we don’t know exactly what genus Adam was. We assume Homo Erectus, but we don’t actually have any evidence of that.
It could also be that Adam wouldn’t have had any natural attraction towards lesser beings, even if they were technically human-shaped.
It could also be that Adam wouldn’t have had any natural attraction towards lesser beings, even if they were technically human-shaped.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
You are suggesting that our parents existed before a rational soul was “instilled” in them.
A rational soul being instilled into something I suppose goes back to Genesis 2:7 - “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” If one is going to speak of the spirit of mankind as the breath of God giving life to matter, it should be recognized that it does not enter a pre-existing living being.
I have to say that in myself, the idea of a soul being instilled into my body is the opposite of who I am, a spirit which incorporates, instills matter into myself. The organizational principle that brings the existence of every molecule, brought together in the form of cells, forming tissues and organs all working together, with neurons organized into patterns of communication in accordance with psychological realities such as perceptions, feelings and words, that which makes all this, existing as it does in relation to being that is other to me, all this that is happening here and now as one unity, that is what has been created. We as individual expressions of one humanity, go back to one first human being, from whom we all come. Our Father before that is God, the Source and true Ground of our existence in the moment, maintaining us as we were created.
It is not necessary for the creation of a human being (Adam), or perhaps even male and female (Adam and Eve) non-identical twins that they must have emerged from the womb of an animal, which had procreated with one of its own species. The same information that is present in our cells, was present in the zygote from which we developed. In the final resurrection of the dead, we will not have to undergo these presumed millions of years of development to be in possession of our glorious bodies. The creation of man was an act by God with evolution being unnecessary.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
How about, God said, let there be light, and there was light. Creating time and space, dividing the light, he brought into existence the building blocks of matter, which He collected into the form of the atom, a form of being capable of interacting with its own kind and coming together as the molecules that are the dust of the universe. These he formed into an advanced form of being which was able to reproduce its own kind. The information-in-action that constitutes these whole living beings was utilized in the creation of multicellular organisms which procreated. It was used to create plants and then fish, animals and birds of different kinds, the souls which defined their being now having a psychological dimension reflected in the organization of cellular communication within their nervous systems. And then, with the available information and a suitable environment, He created Adam. Adam existed in a garden and his choice to sin brought about the fall of creation, which moans and groans as it journeys to God.
R
Richca
Guest
Your charging me with things I never said.
For example, from the initial act of creation in your analysis, namely, the big bang singularity to the formation of our galaxy, our solar system with our sun, moon, the earth and oceans, I believe you are arguing that this all occurred through a natural process of nature. However, the days in the Genesis 1 creation narrative are distinct acts of God’s creative activity, I believe, prefaced by ‘And God said’. On day one, God created light and separated it from the darkness. On day two, God created the firmament and divided the waters. On day three, God separated the oceans from the dry land.
In regards to living things, God creates the vegetation, plants and trees on day 3. On day 5, God creates the marine animals and birds. On day 6, God creates the land animals and finally man, male and female. Again, distinct acts of God’s creative activity. Accordingly, as I already indicated, I personally find it difficult in a certain sense to believe that either the singularity of the big bang theory or the biological evolution of species theory from a single or few primate single cell creatures is ‘perfectly theologically sound’ arguing from Holy Scripture. In my opinion and according to my own belief, a creationist reading of Genesis is more theologically sound than either a big bang or biological evolutionary some sort of reading of the text. But, according to the present teaching of the Church, you don’t have to believe what I do.
I said God’s initial act of creation. I did not say that God created the universe complete instantaneously. According to the Genesis 1-2: 3 creation narrative, God’s work of creation spans a time of 6+ days. So, I don’t believe he created the world complete instantaneously and the discoveries of science appear to confirm this.
I think this depends in one sense on how one interprets Sacred Scripture particularly the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives and other creation texts of scripture. In this sense then, I personally find it difficult that the analysis of the becoming of the world from a single instantaneous act of creation, namely the big bang singularity followed by the biological evolution of species from one or few primitive single cell creatures can be termed ‘perfectly theologically sound’. By ‘perfectly theologically sound’, I mean divine revelation as it is contained in Holy Scripture and particularly the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives.
For example, from the initial act of creation in your analysis, namely, the big bang singularity to the formation of our galaxy, our solar system with our sun, moon, the earth and oceans, I believe you are arguing that this all occurred through a natural process of nature. However, the days in the Genesis 1 creation narrative are distinct acts of God’s creative activity, I believe, prefaced by ‘And God said’. On day one, God created light and separated it from the darkness. On day two, God created the firmament and divided the waters. On day three, God separated the oceans from the dry land.
In regards to living things, God creates the vegetation, plants and trees on day 3. On day 5, God creates the marine animals and birds. On day 6, God creates the land animals and finally man, male and female. Again, distinct acts of God’s creative activity. Accordingly, as I already indicated, I personally find it difficult in a certain sense to believe that either the singularity of the big bang theory or the biological evolution of species theory from a single or few primate single cell creatures is ‘perfectly theologically sound’ arguing from Holy Scripture. In my opinion and according to my own belief, a creationist reading of Genesis is more theologically sound than either a big bang or biological evolutionary some sort of reading of the text. But, according to the present teaching of the Church, you don’t have to believe what I do.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
hmmmm…
E
Edgar
Guest
True, but you can’t make the tree evolve into a different genus, as the degree to which its genetics can vary appears to be limited by natural laws. Only God’s intervention (or genetic engineering) can make that tree evolve beyond it’s genus, imo.
I’m not trying to be scientific (ie, materialistic) here. And I would say you are seriously overestimating the power of science to explain the history of life. What science thinks it can do might be very far from reality, especially when it comes to what happened to life on earth millioms-billions of years ago . Science can theorise about how birds evolved from dinosaurs, for example, but it can’t prove that that’s what actually happened and it can’t prove that natural forces alone allowed such an evolution. In other words, a materialistic explanaton for life is highly likely to be inadequate - regardless of how much hype, wishful thinking and arrogance accompanies such an explanation.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
post removed
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
In that case, even evolutionist Catholics are fundamentalists - for they believe that the very first microbe “popped into existence by divine fiat”. Furthermore, if God can create a microbe from lifeless dust, then God can create much more complicated creatures from dust.
No one can prove that the history of life is the result of natural laws alone.
E
Edgar
Guest
If by “evolution” you mean what biological science means by “evolution” - ie, mutations favoured by natural selection leading to changes in gene frequencies within a popution - then yes, I agree that evolution is a natural process. But if by “evolution” you mean the history of life that begins with a microbe and end with us, then no, I don’t believe that evolution is a natural process.
E
Edgar
Guest
Even if that process was 100% natural, science can’t prove it so.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
It’s possible that the descendants of soul-less humans who sadly missed out on a soul (ie, Adam and Eve’s relatives) are still with us - perhaps living on some remote island that hasn’t been discovered yet, or maybe in Antarctica (are all those penguins down there really pengiuns, or could some of them be soul-less humans in disguise?).
E
Edgar
Guest
What happened to all those humans that existed with Adam and Eve who didn’t receive a soul?
If they became extinct, was this a natural event, or did God extinct them?
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I think what buffalo is getting at is, if Adam and Eve were the result of evolution, there would have been an entire race of humans exactly like them, who didn’t receive a soul and who weren’t placed in the Garden of Eden. Which begs the question, what happened to them?
W
Wozza
Guest
Once again…Richca:
If by “evolution” you mean what biological science means by “evolution” - ie, mutations favoured by natural selection leading to changes in gene frequencies within a popution - then yes, I agree that evolution is a natural process. But if by “evolution” you mean the history of life that begins with a microbe and end with us, then no, I don’t believe that evolution is a natural process.
There are physical laws which makes the universe understandable. We can see how things operate. There is an order to existence which allows us to live ordered lives. These laws are God’s creation. He set them up so that there is some logic to existence. We wouldn’t exist as physical beings without them. Everything that happens occurs according to these laws. We describe what happens in this case as being natural.
Except when they don’t. Except when God decides to circumvent His laws and do something that doesn’t conform to them. We describe what happens in this case as supernatural.
In BOTH CASES God is involved. It is NOT the case that God is excluded from what we describe as being natural.
If God decided to instantly bring into existence penguins using supernatural means then that’s His call. If he decided to do it using natural means, then that’s His call as well. In BOTH CASES God is responsible.
Now God gave us a brain so that we could understand His creation. We are not dumb oxen. And there is a natural tendency to wonder where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. Some of these questions can be answered via God’s natural laws using the scientific method. Other questions require theology. And God has not hidden the answers from us. They are there if we are smart enough to follow the clues.
So we gather natural evidence and put forward natural hypotheses and formulate natural theories. And the theories which answer the questions we have in the most comprehensive way become the best answers we have to the questions we ask regarding nature.
The best natural answer we have to the question as to how we physically came to be is evolution. If that contradicts what you believe to be the supernatural answer then so be it. Don’t waste everyone’s time trying to deny God’s natural laws by invoking your personal interpretation of scripture and demanding that everyone accepts He could only produce what we have now using supernatural means.
He could have done either. But all the evidence points to Him choosing to work with His own natural laws. The only people who deny this are fundamental Christians who insist on reading scripture literally.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is clear that there is no in-between with respect to something in existence. There were no human beings on earth, Eden at that point, and then there was Adam.
To your post, I would contribute that after the sixth day, the creation of different kinds of being no longer occurred. Each new human being is brought into existence as an expression of humankind. Creation happens in its moment. Whenever in time Adam appeared, when it took place would be “now”. Nothing can happen but “now”. When I awoke yesterday, I thought to myself, “It’s time to get up now”, and on my death bed it will be “Now it’s time to die.” The Source, the Cause of each moment is the same One Creator, eternal, outside of time, bringing everything that is, was and will be, relative to this specific moment in time, as you reading this in what is the future for me, having written this in what will be your past, bringing all this into existence, always Now, everywhere. So yes, I would agree it is all simultaneous and instantaneous to God.
That the universe began fully formed as it is, is not something I would agree with. I do believe that the six days represent the creation of a hierarchy of being. In terms of what exists materially, the first to be brought into existence would be that which we study as physics, the second in chemistry, the third, fourth and fifth would be what we have revealed by microbiology, botany, and zoology. The sixth day represents the creation of theology, philosophy, economics, political science, that which constitutes human nature. This didn’t happen temporally in one instant as far as I understand.
Last edited:
- Status